To consider the following application:

18/506417/FULL, Land at Southsea Avenue, Minster.

Members of the public are advised to confirm with Planning Services prior to the meeting that the application will be considered at this meeting.

Requests to speak on this item must be registered with Democratic Services (democraticservices@swale.gov.uk or call us on 01795 417328) by noon on Friday 24 January 2020.

Tabled Paper added 24 January 2020.

Reports shown in previous Minutes as being deferred from that Meeting

The Major Projects Officer referred to the tabled update for this item.

Annette King, an objector, spoke against the application.

Ian McCourt, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

A Member sought clarification on the change in mix of dwelling types and also the revised window heights.  The Major Projects Officer referred him to paragraph 1.3 on page 2 of the committee report.  He highlighted the main changes which included plots 4 – 7 and 72 being replaced with chalet bungalows; the removal of Juliet balconies and replacement with high level windows on 14 plots, and the removal of double height windows on 14 plots, over various locations throughout the layout.  The Major Projects Officer said that if Members had concerns with a particular plot, this could be looked at further.

A Member asked for an update on any ecological studies being carried out on the site.  The Major Projects Officer explained that he was not aware of any ecological work currently being undertaken.  He said that the original report, for the 10 October 2019 Planning Committee set-out details of work undertaken by Kent County Council (KCC) Ecology. He added that KCC Ecology had requested a number of conditions if planning permission was granted.

A Member noted the density of the housing as being 28 dwellings per hectare and asked for comparison with density figures in the nearby vicinity.  The Major Projects Officer showed the Committee the layout plan of the proposed development and said that the mix of houses were generally detached and semi-detached, with some short terraces.  He considered the design to be in-line with the character of the surrounding area, and that 28 dwellings per hectare was a modest figure.  The Member asked which roads would be brought-up to specification.  The Major Projects Officer referred to condition (15) in the report whereby the key roads through the site were to be made-up to an adoptable standard.

A Member referred to bollards being positioned on some of the roads to help stop them becoming rat-runs, and asked if the rights of existing access would be retained?  The Major Projects Officer explained that bollards were not proposed on the site, and that any existing rights of access was a private legal matter and not a planning matter.

A Member referred to the ecology section on page 22 of the report and that the proposal should demonstrate a net gain in biodiversity.  The Major Projects Officer explained that the resolution from the October 2019 Planning Committee had centred on three specific issues being given further consideration, going forward, and these had not included ecology matters.  He referred the Member to pages 30 – 31 in the report where the ecological issues had been assessed.  The Major Projects Officer said that most of the site was heavily vegetated, and the development would have an adverse effect in that a lot of this would be lost, but he explained that the benefits of the proposal outweighed the potential harm.  In response to a question from the Member as to whether bio-diversity gain was required, the Major Projects Officer advised that generally this was the case, but the benefits of the development also needed to be considered and that in this instance these outweighed the harm.  The Member noted that some of the vegetation had already been removed and questioned whether condition (9) in the report was thereby enforceable?  The Major Projects Officer acknowledged that some of the vegetation had been cleared, but stated that condition (9) was relevant to the remaining vegetation and should be complied with, going forward.  The Member welcomed the measures outlined on page 7 of the report but considered an energy efficiency condition should have been included on the application if it was granted.  The Major Projects Officer referred the Member to condition (4) in the report which set-out required sustainable and renewable measures, and agreed that an additional, more robust, condition could be added.

A Member questioned why an ecological survey could not have been carried out prior to planning permission being granted.  The Major Projects Officer again referred to pages 30 – 31 of the original report, and the sequence of events in terms of ecology matters, and that KCC Ecology had been happy with the application, subject to conditions (7), (8) and (9) relating to ecology.  He added that the assessment of the application was a balancing exercise, but considered it was reasonable to approve, based on these conditions and noting the benefits of the scheme.  He also noted that protected species, if located on the site, were protected by separate legislation.

The Chairman moved the officer recommendation to approve the application and this was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

A Ward Member spoke against the application.  He queried the number of chalet bungalows and raised concern that most of the dwellings were 3-storey, and he considered the fact that they were on a slope had been ‘glossed-over’, and that these dwellings would cause overlooking to existing properties.  He said that ecological studies had been carried out near residential areas, and not in areas where wildlife was more likely to live.  The Ward Member considered the proposal to be over-development and that it did not fit in with the street-scene.  The Major Projects Officer confirmed that five chalet dwellings were proposed on plots 4 to 7 and on plot 72.  He added that contoured plans had been supplied showing the levels of the site.

Members were invited to debate the application and made points which included:

·         Not enough of the properties had been reduced in height;

·         overlooking and too intensive;

·         officers and the developer had been given a clear message at the last meeting as to what Members wanted from this application, and the applicant had done what was asked; and

·         happy with the resolution in relation to the crossing point, and the open space.

At this point, Councillor Tim Valentine moved the following amendment:

That, should the application be approved, the following energy efficiency condition be added:

Prior to the construction of any dwelling a scheme of sustainable design and construction measures for the dwellings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall demonstrate –

a)      A reduction in carbon emissions of at least 50% compared to the target emission rate as required under Part L of the Building Regulations 2013 (as amended) for any dwelling completed between the years 2020 and 2023 (inclusive);

b)      A reduction in carbon emissions of at least 75% compared to the target emission rate as required under Part L of the Building Regulations 2013 (as amended) for any dwelling completed between the years 2024 and 2027 (inclusive);

c)      A reduction in carbon emissions of 100% (Zero Carbon) compared to the target emission rate as required under Part L of the Building Regulations 2013 (as amended) for any dwelling completed in or after the year 2028.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

This was seconded by Councillor Benjamin Martin.  On being put to the vote the amendment was agreed.

Resolved:  That application 18/506417/FULL be approved subject to conditions (1) to (28) in the report, and the inclusion of an energy efficiency condition (setting-out reductions in carbon dioxide emissions to be achieved over and above the standards set by the current Building Regulations), plus inclusion of the developer contributions as noted in paragraph 8.39 of the original report.